IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0071379.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Cost-Utility Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening and the Additional Benefits of Incorporating Smoking Cessation Interventions

Author

Listed:
  • Andrea C Villanti
  • Yiding Jiang
  • David B Abrams
  • Bruce S Pyenson

Abstract

Background: A 2011 report from the National Lung Screening Trial indicates that three annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screenings for lung cancer reduced lung cancer mortality by 20% compared to chest X-ray among older individuals at high risk for lung cancer. Discussion has shifted from clinical proof to financial feasibility. The goal of this study was to determine whether LDCT screening for lung cancer in a commercially-insured population (aged 50–64) at high risk for lung cancer is cost-effective and to quantify the additional benefits of incorporating smoking cessation interventions in a lung cancer screening program. Methods and Findings: The current study builds upon a previous simulation model to estimate the cost-utility of annual, repeated LDCT screenings over 15 years in a high risk hypothetical cohort of 18 million adults between age 50 and 64 with 30+ pack-years of smoking history. In the base case, the lung cancer screening intervention cost $27.8 billion over 15 years and yielded 985,284 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained for a cost-utility ratio of $28,240 per QALY gained. Adding smoking cessation to these annual screenings resulted in increases in both the costs and QALYs saved, reflected in cost-utility ratios ranging from $16,198 per QALY gained to $23,185 per QALY gained. Annual LDCT lung cancer screening in this high risk population remained cost-effective across all sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: The findings of this study indicate that repeat annual lung cancer screening in a high risk cohort of adults aged 50–64 is highly cost-effective. Offering smoking cessation interventions with the annual screening program improved the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening between 20% and 45%. The cost-utility ratios estimated in this study were in line with other accepted cancer screening interventions and support inclusion of annual LDCT screening for lung cancer in a high risk population in clinical recommendations.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrea C Villanti & Yiding Jiang & David B Abrams & Bruce S Pyenson, 2013. "A Cost-Utility Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening and the Additional Benefits of Incorporating Smoking Cessation Interventions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-11, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0071379
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0071379
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0071379
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0071379&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0071379?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Farrelly, M.C. & Pechacek, T.F. & Thomas, K.Y. & Nelson, D., 2008. "The impact of tobacco control programs on adult smoking," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 98(2), pages 304-309.
    2. Janel Hanmer & William F. Lawrence & John P. Anderson & Robert M. Kaplan & Dennis G. Fryback, 2006. "Report of Nationally Representative Values for the Noninstitutionalized US Adult Population for 7 Health-Related Quality-of-Life Scores," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(4), pages 391-400, July.
    3. Julie Sturza, 2010. "A Review and Meta-Analysis of Utility Values for Lung Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(6), pages 685-693, November.
    4. Wolfgang C. Winkelmayer & Milton C. Weinstein & Murray A. Mittleman & Robert J. Glynn & Joseph S. Pliskin, 2002. "Health Economic Evaluations: The Special Case of End-Stage Renal Disease Treatment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(5), pages 417-430, October.
    5. Schoenbaum, M., 1997. "Do smokers understand the mortality effects of smoking? Evidence from the health and retirement survey," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 87(5), pages 755-759.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mucahit Cevik & Mehmet Ali Ergun & Natasha K. Stout & Amy Trentham-Dietz & Mark Craven & Oguzhan Alagoz, 2016. "Using Active Learning for Speeding up Calibration in Simulation Models," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(5), pages 581-593, July.
    2. Sébastien Gendarme & Jean-Claude Pairon & Pascal Andujar & François Laurent & Patrick Brochard & Fleur Delva & Bénédicte Clin & Antoine Gislard & Christophe Paris & Isabelle Thaon & Helene Goussault &, 2022. "Cost-Effectiveness of an Organized Lung Cancer Screening Program for Asbestos-Exposed Subjects," Post-Print hal-03783819, HAL.
    3. Carina M. Behr & Martijn J. Oude Wolcherink & Maarten J. IJzerman & Rozemarijn Vliegenthart & Hendrik Koffijberg, 2023. "Population-Based Screening Using Low-Dose Chest Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 395-411, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kontodimopoulos, Nick & Niakas, Dimitris, 2008. "An estimate of lifelong costs and QALYs in renal replacement therapy based on patients' life expectancy," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 85-96, April.
    2. Christophe Courbage, 2006. "Smoking Behavior and Rank-Dependent Expected-Uitility," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 142(II), pages 223-230, June.
    3. Kathleen McColl & Marion Debin & Cecile Souty & Caroline Guerrisi & Clement Turbelin & Alessandra Falchi & Isabelle Bonmarin & Daniela Paolotti & Chinelo Obi & Jim Duggan & Yamir Moreno & Ania Wisniak, 2021. "Are People Optimistically Biased about the Risk of COVID-19 Infection? Lessons from the First Wave of the Pandemic in Europe," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-23, December.
    4. Vesile Kutlu-Koc & Adriaan Kalwij, 2017. "Individual Survival Expectations and Actual Mortality: Evidence from Dutch Survey and Administrative Data," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 33(4), pages 509-532, October.
    5. Ara, R & Brazier, JE, 2010. "Using health state utility values from the general population to approximate baselines in decision analytic models when condition specific data are not available," MPRA Paper 29946, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Christina Czart Ciecierski & Pinka Chatterji & Frank J. Chaloupka & Henry Wechsler, 2011. "Do state expenditures on tobacco control programs decrease use of tobacco products among college students?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 253-272, March.
    7. Malek Ebadi & Raha Akhavan-Tabatabaei, 2021. "Personalized Cotesting Policies for Cervical Cancer Screening: A POMDP Approach," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-20, March.
    8. Dana S Mowls & D Robert McCaffree & Laura A Beebe, 2015. "Trends in Lung Cancer Incidence Rates, Oklahoma 2005–2010," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-6, April.
    9. repec:plo:pone00:0220148 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Hannah A D Keage & Tobias Loetscher, 2018. "Estimating everyday risk: Subjective judgments are related to objective risk, mapping of numerical magnitudes and previous experience," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, December.
    11. Prajakta P. Masurkar & Haluk Damgacioglu & Ashish A. Deshmukh & Meghana V. Trivedi, 2023. "Cost Effectiveness of CDK4/6 Inhibitors in the First-Line Treatment of HR+/HER2− Metastatic Breast Cancer in Postmenopausal Women in the USA," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(6), pages 709-718, June.
    12. S. Balia, 2011. "Survival expectations, subjective health and smoking: evidence from European countries," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 11/30, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    13. Amber Pearson & Gregory Breetzke, 2014. "The Association Between the Fear of Crime, and Mental and Physical Wellbeing in New Zealand," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 119(1), pages 281-294, October.
    14. Jay Bhattacharya & Dana Goldman & Neeraj Sood, 2003. "Market Evidence of Misperceived Prices and Mistaken Mortality Risks," NBER Working Papers 9863, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Jan Jürgensen & Wolfgang Arns & Bastian Haß, 2010. "Cost-effectiveness of immunosuppressive regimens in renal transplant recipients in Germany: a model approach," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 11(1), pages 15-25, February.
    16. John A Tauras & Xin Xu & Jidong Huang & Brian King & S Rene Lavinghouze & Karla S Sneegas & Frank J Chaloupka, 2018. "State tobacco control expenditures and tax paid cigarette sales," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-15, April.
    17. James K. Hammitt, 2017. "Valuing Non-Fatal Health Risks: Monetary and Health-Utility Measures," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 68(3), pages 335-356.
    18. Michael J. Zoratti & A. Simon Pickard & Peep F. M. Stalmeier & Daniel Ollendorf & Andrew Lloyd & Kelvin K W Chan & Don Husereau & John E. Brazier & Murray Krahn & Mitchell Levine & Lehana Thabane & Fe, 2021. "Evaluating the conduct and application of health utility studies: a review of critical appraisal tools and reporting checklists," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 723-733, July.
    19. Mehmet A. Ergun & Ali Hajjar & Oguzhan Alagoz & Murtuza Rampurwala, 2022. "Optimal breast cancer risk reduction policies tailored to personal risk level," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 363-388, September.
    20. Andrew Fenelon & Samuel Preston, 2012. "Estimating Smoking-Attributable Mortality in the United States," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 49(3), pages 797-818, August.
    21. Rhoads, Jennifer K., 2012. "The effect of comprehensive state tobacco control programs on adult cigarette smoking," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 393-405.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0071379. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.